Bates v. Bates, (2000) 133 O.A.C. 319 (CA)

• Judge: Austin, Laskin and Borins, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: June 19, 2000
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (2000), 133 O.A.C. 319 (CA)

Bates v. Bates (2000), 133 O.A.C. 319 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2000] O.A.C. TBEd. JN.044

Paul Joseph Bates (appellant) v. Elizabeth Eileen Bates (respondent)

(C31685)

Indexed As: Bates v. Bates

Ontario Court of Appeal

Austin, Laskin and Borins, JJ.A.

June 19, 2000.

Summary:

A consent order awarded a wife custody of the two children of the marriage and re­quired the husband to pay child support. After the Federal Child Support Guidelines came into effect, the wife applied to vary the child support order to the table amount under the Guidelines.

The trial judge allowed the application, holding that the coming into force of the Guidelines was a change of circumstances entitling the wife to a variation order com­plying with the Guidelines. The husband appealed. The wife moved to introduce, as fresh evidence, her affidavit setting out her current income and expenses.

The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the trial judge and remitted the husband's application for a new hearing. The court dismissed the motion to introduce fresh evidence.

Family Law - Topic 4017

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance awards - Variation of periodic payments or lump sum award - The Ontario Court of Appeal opined that, contrary to its earlier decision in Sherman v. Sherman, the enact­ment of the federal Child Support Guide­lines constituted a change in circumstances entitling either spouse to a variation of a previous child support order to come under the Guidelines regime - A court could depart from the table amount only under ss. 17(6.2) to 27(6.5) of the Divorce Act or under ss. 4, 5, or 7-10 of the Guidelines - See paragraphs 2, 3 and 13 to 33.

Family Law - Topic 4045.8

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance - Support guidelines - Changed circum­stances - [See Family Law - Topic 4017 ].

Cases Noticed:

Sherman v. Sherman (1999), 45 R.F.L.(4th) 424, disagreed with [para. 2].

Francis v. Baker (1998), 107 O.A.C. 161; 38 O.R.(3d) 481 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].

Willick v. Willick, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 670; 173 N.R. 321; 125 Sask.R. 81; 81 W.A.C. 81; 6 R.F.L.(4th) 161, refd to. [para. 9].

Francis v. Baker, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 250; 246 N.R. 45; 125 O.A.C. 201, refd to. [para. 9].

Tauber v. Tauber (2000), 133 O.A.C. 66 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 12].

Wang v. Wang (1998), 110 B.C.A.C. 302; 178 W.A.C. 302; 39 R.F.L.(4th) 426 (C.A.), consd. [para. 13].

Garard v. Garard (1998), 111 B.C.A.C. 269; 181 W.A.C. 269; 164 D.L.R.(4th) 347; 41 R.F.L.(4th) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13, footnote 3].

Meuser v. Meuser (1998), 43 R.F.L.(4th) 140 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 13, foot­note 3].

Laird v. Laird (2000), 250 A.R. 193; 213 W.A.C. 193; 76 Alta. L.R.(3d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

Dergousoff v. Dergousoff (1999), 177 Sask.R. 64; 199 W.A.C. 64; 48 R.F.L.(4th) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

Pelletier v. Parent (1999), 219 N.B.R.(2d) 102; 561 A.P.R. 102; 1 R.F.L.(5th) 66 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

Rizzo and Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Bankrupt), Re (1998), 221 N.R. 241; 106 O.A.C. 1; 154 D.L.R.(4th) 193 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 23].

Bapoo v. Co-operators General Insurance Co. (1998), 36 O.R.(3d) 616 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

Nouveau Brunswick (Ministre de la Santé et des Services Communautaires) v. M.L. et R.L., [1998] 2 S.C.R. 534; 230 N.R. 201; 204 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 520 A.P.R. 1, refd to. [para. 24].

Gervais v. Tongue, [2000] O.T.C. 14 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 28, footnote 15].

Osmar v. Osmar, [2000] O.T.C. 399 (Sup. Ct.), agreed with [para. 28, footnote 16].

Young v. British Aeroplane Co., [1944] 2 All E.R. 293 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31, footnote 17].

R. v. Pierce (M.) (1997), 97 O.A.C. 253; 114 C.C.C.(3d) 23 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31, footnote 17].

Delta Acceptance Corp. v. Redman, [1966] 2 O.R. 37, refd to. [para. 31, footnote 17].

Longtin v. Fire (1994), 70 O.A.C. 226; 17 O.R.(3d) 418 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31, footnote 17].

R. v. Santeramo (1976), 12 N.R. 628; 32 C.C.C.(2d) 35 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 31, footnote 17].

R. v. White (R.G.) and Côté (Y.) (1996), 91 O.A.C. 321; 108 C.C.C.(3d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 32, footnote 18].

R. v. Jenkins (E.) et al. (1996), 90 O.A.C. 263; 107 C.C.C.(3d) 440 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 32, footnote 18].

Statutes Noticed:

Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 3 (2nd Supp.), sect. 17(1)(a) [para. 15]; sect. 17(4) [para. 16]; sect. 17(6.1) [para. 17]; sect. 17(6.2), sect. 17(6.3), sect. 17(6.4), sect. 17(6.5) [para. 18].

Divorce Act Regulations (Can.), Federal Child Support Guidelines, SOR/97-175, sect. 3(1) [para. 20]; sect. 4 [para. 21]; sect. 14(c) [para. 22].

Federal Child Support Guidelines - see Divorce Act Regulations (Can.), Federal Child Support Guidelines.

Authors and Works Noticed:

Bala, Nicholas, First Impressions of the Implementation of the Guidelines, March 1998, generally [para. 27, footnote 12].

Canada, Department of Justice, Federal Child Support Guidelines: The Complete Workbook looseleaf (1997), p. 8 [para. 24, footnote 7].

Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates (February 14, 1997), p. 8122 [para. 24].

Driedger, Elmer A., Construction of Stat­utes (3rd Ed. 1994), pp. 131 [para. 23]; 168 [para. 24].

Epstein, Philip M., Child Support Guide­lines Legislation: An Overview, Federal Child Support Guidelines: Reference Manual (1997), generally [para. 25, footnote 10].

Epstein, Philip M., Variation Proceedings: The Effect of the Guidelines on Previous Agreements and Orders, Child Support Guidelines: The Mysteries Unravelled (1996), generally [para. 25 footnote 10].

McKay, Heather L., A Review of the Concepts and Case Law, March 1998, generally [para. 26, footnote 11].

McLeod, James G., Annotation to Garard v. Garard (1998), 41 R.F.L.(4th) 1, pp. 2, 3 [para. 27, footnote 14].

McLeod, James G., Annotation to Sherman v. Sherman (1999), 45 R.F.L.(4th) 424, pp. 425 [para. 27, footnote 13]; 427 [para. 24].

Counsel:

A. Burke Doran, for the appellant;

Nicole Tellier, for the respondent.

This appeal and motion were heard on February 17, 2000, by Austin, Laskin and Borins, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Ap­peal.

The court delivered judgment on June 19, 2000, including the following opinions:

Laskin, J.A. (Borins, J.A., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 36;

Austin, J.A. - see paragraphs 37 and 38.